Hazel Tatum Bowers Estate v. Cleveland Ellis ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-2776
    ___________
    Florida Ewings, Administratrix of    *
    Estate of Hazel Tatum Bowers with    *
    will annexed,                        *
    *
    Appellee,                *
    *
    v.                             * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Cleveland Robert Ellis,              * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    *
    Appellant,               * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    v.                             *
    *
    Bank of America,                     *
    *
    Appellee.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 29, 2008
    Filed: January 23, 2009
    ___________
    Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Cleveland Robert Ellis appeals the district court’s1 
    28 U.S.C. § 1447
    (c) order
    remanding this unlawful detainer action against him to state court. We first note that
    the remand order is unreviewable to the extent it was based on the district court’s lack
    of subject matter jurisdiction, but it is reviewable to the extent Ellis attempted to
    remove the action from state court based on 
    28 U.S.C. § 1443
    . See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1447
    (d) (remand order is not reviewable on appeal, except that remand of case that
    was removed pursuant to § 1443 is reviewable). Upon careful review of Ellis’s
    assertions to support removal under section 1443, we conclude that removal was not
    warranted under that provision. See Georgia v. Rachel, 
    384 U.S. 780
    , 800 (1966)
    (removal under § 1443(1) is warranted “only if it can be predicted by reference to a
    law of general application that the defendant will be denied or cannot enforce the
    specified federal rights in the state courts”); City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 
    384 U.S. 808
    , 814-15 (1966) (§ 1443(2) is available only to federal officers and persons
    assisting such officers in performance of official duties); see also Bizzle v. McKesson
    Corp., 
    961 F.2d 719
    , 721 (8th Cir. 1992) (in reviewing case on appeal, court may
    affirm on any ground supported by record, even though that ground was not addressed
    in court below).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Eastern District of Arkansas.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-2776

Filed Date: 1/23/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021